<quoted text>The Edwards v. Aguillard decision rejected any teaching that proposed a "supernatural creator".The original, pre-Edwards drafts of "Pandas and People" specifically said that no supernatural creator was proposed, and such a proposal would not be appropriately taught in school.The concept of Intelligent Design was introduced by Hoyle and Horigan in the 1970s, and they are both atheists. This was at least 15 years prior to the Edwards decision.The ID movement began in earnest with Charles Thaxton's book in 1984. Edwards was in 1987.1984 is prior to 1987.Feel free to argue otherwise.You are parroting propaganda. You are a moron.

You mean Thaxton the YOUNG EARTH CREATIONIST?

Gee, cuz no-one could POSSIBLY go back and find a cool sound-bite from a couple of years ago to adopt for their new wave of recycled creationist apologetics could they?

<quoted text>"ID/creationism" does not exist. There is no such thing.You proved yourself a liar with your first sentence. I didn't read the rest.If you expose yourself as a liar in the first 7 words, I have no interest engaging.But don't take it personal. Have a nice day!

Hey Buck, why are you, a known and confirmed liar accusing others of lying?

<quoted text>I gave you all those answers.You were not interested.You are only interested in your anti-ID propaganda. I handed you your ass on each and every point.You ran over to the other thread to lick your wounds and find supporters.You found them - a bunch of morons. Enjoy.

Actually I was posting on two threads simultaneously. You left one of them, but I figured that was more due to time constraints since we were basically having the same argument on two threads.

<quoted text>So, I ask if you can name an experiment? This is how you respond?LOL. Doesn't that tell you something about your claims?Given ABSOLUTELY no restrictions, all the money and time in the world - you still can't come up with ONE experiment which would demonstrate a single mechanism of intelligent design.Who's the coward?

<quoted text>"ID/creationism" does not exist. There is no such thing.You proved yourself a liar with your first sentence. I didn't read the rest.If you expose yourself as a liar in the first 7 words, I have no interest engaging.But don't take it personal. Have a nice day!

Someone on the internet called me a liar. I will have to live with that burden for the rest of my life.

Courtesy of the other thread:

You seem to be under the impression that anything said here matters. I can't speak for your side of the discussion but for me and many others here we do this simply for entertainment (as masochistic as that might sound) and as an intellectual exercise. I am a writer and like to keep my chops fresh by taking a position and arguing it, even if I have nothing invested in the outcome (I also defend multi boxing on the World of Warcraft forums).

The simple fact is if anyone on your side of the argument had any real information or evidence that disproved or discredited Evolution you would not be here on Topix. You would be out doing the talk shows and collecting your Nobel Prize and working out the advance on your book deals.

Nothing said on these forums is going to change anything, anywhere. No public policy will be initiated, no changes to school programs, no new textbooks. If you were truly interested in this topic and making real change just about any other activity you could be doing would be more productive then posting here.

In short, Evolution is the currently accepted scientific Theory. It is taught in High School and Colleges around the world. It is the basis of modern Biology. And there is absolutely nothing you can do about it.

<quoted text>Maybe it's because Judge Jones' ruling was written before the trial began and the evidence presented?He plagiarized an ACLU brief that was written a month before the trial, complete with original typos. It was riddled with errors, and contradicted by evidence presented at trial.You might want science decided by plagiarism of the ACLU.Not me.

You need to replace the tinfoil in your hat with a thicker grade. You are a moron. Nothing personal, just an observation.

<quoted text>No. If you lied to me this way face to face, you would quickly find yourself spitting out your bloody teeth.

Your very first words to me started with "Are you too stupid ...", which is the sign of a coward and a bully. Using such terms with someone you do not know from the safety and apparent anonymity of the Internet. Now you threaten battery? You really aren't very bright, but then cowards and bullies are rarely very bright.

Still waiting for you to support your claims, but we both know you cannot, so you are a liar as well as a coward and a bully. Real trifecta there, aren't you?

Since I doubt you will even try to defned your comments, you will simply continue to act the coward, bully, and liar. So enjoy! If you really do act this way, especially with people you don't know ... You are also pretty damn stupid.

You are just hitting them out of the park, A stupid, coward, bully, and liar! Are you always this successful at showing your ass?

No propaganda needed. Simple truth is all there in black and white on the two drafts of "Pandas". Why was it rewritten?

As far as intelligent "design", face it, our human form... our body has never been perfect, just good enough. Our bodies alone offer innumerable examples of organs and structures that clearly have their roots in the opportunistic modification of a preexisting structure, i.e. EVOLUTION, rather than the clean, simple elegance and perfection of design.

If you carefully examine some of the complex biological systems in our bodies for errors you would realize that these flaws rule out an intelligent design pattern, no intelligent designer would have committed such profound errors. Because intelligent design works from a clean slate, it should have produced organisms that have been optimally designed for the tasks they perform, on the other hand, because evolution is confined to modifying existing structures, it should not necessarily produce perfection.

Take the too small jaw filled with too many teeth. About 8 years ago Penn was doing research related to muscular dystrophy , genes that govern myosin, the major contractile protein that makes up muscle tissue when they found one small mutation that undermined the entire myosin gene. A mutation that prevents the expression of a variety of myosin , designated MYH16 on chromosome 7. They found the gene-inactivating mutation in all modern humans sampled, from Africa, South America, Western Europe, Iceland, Japan, and Russia. The mutation was not present in the DNA of seven species of non-human primates, including chimpanzee. So, the mutation, a deletion in the base pairs that encodes myosin (MYH16), which all non-human primates have, is missing from human jaw muscles.

This random mutation of the gene for the jaw muscle protein in humans led to the beneficial reduction of the mass of the jaw, the weaker jaw led to the upward expansion of our skulls to accommodate our expanding brains. Multiple genetic changes then occurred leading to the development of the larger brain cortex.

How about our intelligently designed eyes? If our eyes were designed, the designer knew nothing of wiring. The neural wiring of its light-sensing units, the photoreceptor cells, located in the retina, pass impulses to a series of interconnecting cells that eventually pass information to the cells of the optic nerve, which leads to the brain.

An intelligent designer, working with the components of this wiring, would choose the orientation that produces the highest degree of visual quality. Why would God intentionally place the neural connections in front of the photoreceptor cells -- thus blocking the light from reaching them -- rather than behind the retina? This is exactly how the human retina is constructed. Visual quality is degraded because light scatters as it passes through several layers of cellular wiring before reaching the retina. The effects are compounded because a network of vessels, which is needed to supply the nerve cells with a supply of blood, also sits directly in front of the light-sensitive layer, another feature that no one would intentionally design.

A more serious flaw occurs because the neural wiring must poke directly through the wall of the retina to carry the nerve impulses produced by photoreceptor cells to the brain. The result is a blind spot in the retina -- a region where thousands of impulse-carrying cells have pushed the sensory cells aside. Each human retina has a blind spot roughly a millimeter in diameter -- one that would not exist if only the eye were designed with its sensory wiring behind rather than in front of the photoreceptors.

Are you thinking, so what? All creatures have this design? It would be impossible to construct an eye that is wired properly, so that the light-sensitive cells face the incoming image? Well, that is not the case. Many organisms have eyes in which the neural wiring is tucked away behind the photoreceptor layer. The squid and the octopus, for example, have a lens-and-retina eye quite similar to our own, but their eyes are wired right-side out, with no light-scattering nerve cells or blood vessels in front of the photoreceptors, and no blind spot.

What of the location of our esophagus and trachea? The placement, being aligned so closely together causes countless choking deaths and episodes of aspiration every year.

Walking upright and bearing weight is the cause of our innumerable back and joint problems. It goes for a too narrow pelvis and too small birth canal causing a myriad of difficulties during the birthing process.

What of an immune system that actually turns on the its host (body) attacking and inflaming your joints causing rheumatoid arthritis, attacking the myelin sheath causing multiple sclerosis, attacking the organs causing systemic lupus, attacking the lining of the heart, causing rheumatic heart disease, attacking the pancreas, causing diabetes and a host of other auto (self) immune diseases.

Once again, opportunistic modification of a preexisting structure, i.e.evolution explains all of our design flaws. This does not, however, give evidence against the existence of a Deity.

For those like Francis Collins, Ken Miller, Guy Consolmagno, it does explain the way that God created us, using evolution as a tool.

The amazing and exquisite adaptations and specializations of living organisms, the diversity of life that we see around us, are all the products of natural selection. This is a process whereby the genetic variations, such as size, shape, color, that give individuals the best chance to survive and reproduce are passed on to subsequent generations

This incremental process is the real reason why it is ridiculous to characterize evolution as mere chance. Chance plays a role in presenting random genetic variations. But natural selection, which is not random, determines which variations will become fixed in the species.

<quoted text>No. If you lied to me this way face to face, you would quickly find yourself spitting out your bloody teeth.

Wow, that certainly is brave, and very scary. You call people cowards and yet you make threats from a computer. I can't think of many things more cowardly than that. If the picture in fact is you, I can think of a few reasons for your anger. One, you were beaten up as a child and bullied. Two, you aren't very confident in yourself so you make up for it by lifting weights and drinking protein shakes. Third, you are a coward.

<quoted text>The Edwards v. Aguillard decision rejected any teaching that proposed a "supernatural creator".The original, pre-Edwards drafts of "Pandas and People" specifically said that no supernatural creator was proposed, and such a proposal would not be appropriately taught in school.The concept of Intelligent Design was introduced by Hoyle and Horigan in the 1970s, and they are both atheists. This was at least 15 years prior to the Edwards decision.The ID movement began in earnest with Charles Thaxton's book in 1984. Edwards was in 1987.1984 is prior to 1987.Feel free to argue otherwise.You are parroting propaganda. You are a moron.

You must not be familiar with Fred Hoyle. While he rejected the idea of earth based abiogenesis, his ideas about the development of life on earth don't reflect the views of ID whatsoever. He believed that life began in space, was seeded by debris on the earth and evolved through the introduction of genetic material provided by viruses on comets. He makes this all very clear in his 1984 book named, appropriately enough, Evolution from Space, which he co-wrote with a former student and collaborator Chandra Wickramasinghe. Other than his professed incredulity that life at its origin could have resulted from any undirected process, he has not done anything to help make a case for ID.

I also looked up Horigan only to find that his book regarding ID is not a scientific text but a philosophical one. I could also find no evidence that he was an atheist, with the only searches returned being ID proponent blogs (which only describe him as a non-scientist), book sellers and topix threads that you've posted in. Interestingly, virtually all of the results also had Fred Hoyle referenced immediately prior to Horigan, just like in your post. What was that you were saying about parroting earlier?

Anyway, even if Horigan was a confirmed atheist, I doubt an early philosophical text would be deemed sufficient precedent on which to decide what the fundamental tenants and implications of intelligent design were and whether they were suited to be taught as science in the classroom.

That being said, it still astounds me that people try to claim Fred Hoyle was a proponent in any for the intelligent design of evolving species.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Add your comments below

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite.
Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.